Category: Non-Video

  • How to Manage Growers: FSMA Produce Safety Rule for Processors

    Let’s face it, all of our food comes from farms. When it comes to plant-based food there’s always a grower (or many growers!) involved.

    Here at Safe Food Alliance, we work to, help growers implement processes to ensure compliance with the FSMA Produce Safety rule (FSMA is the FDA’s “Food Safety Modernization Act”). Many of our customers are also processors who buy a raw agricultural commodity (‘RAC’) from growers, and are reevaluating how they “manage” these growers as part of their supplier approval/ supplier management program.

    As it stands, if you are a processor that purchases directly from growers you should be considering a review of your company’s grower management programs, with the following objectives in mind:

    1. Meeting FSMA regulatory requirements
    2. Meeting your customer requirements and food safety audit requirements
    3. Protecting your operation by reducing risk

    Assessing Risk & Defining Controls

    At the most basic level, any food processor should be making sure that their suppliers and the products purchased comply with current regulations and are safe. This includes packaging suppliers, ingredient suppliers, and raw materials like agricultural commodities. This doesn’t mean that you have to physically audit all of your suppliers; it doesn’t even mean that you have to get a copy of a third-party audit from all of them. Food safety is always based on risk, so as a processor, you need to determine the level of risk posed by the raw material, then based on that assessment determine what controls are needed.

    If this sounds a lot like HACCP or Preventive Controls, that’s because it is. Based on your hazard analysis you determine what needs to be done to reduce risk and help ensure the safety of your products, and to ultimately protect the future of your company.

    With produce, processors should always identify the risk of pathogens in their hazard analysis. Remember that any produce may bear this risk, since it’s grown outside. Additionally, there may be physical hazards that a company will have to contend with in its internal operations. Lastly, an assessment of likely chemical risks, such as pesticides, has to be done.

    Evaluating Each Type of Risk

    HIGHER RISK

    Products that are higher risk will require the highest level of verification to help minimize any risk. High-risk products might include anything such as  an annual crop grown directly on the ground, or anything eaten fresh without a processing step that would significantly reduce pathogens. Imported items may also bear a higher risk, depending on the country of origin and their local practices and regulations, and may need extra verification activities.

    Examples: Leafy greens, fresh fruit, some imported items

    Potential Controls: Third-party GAP audit, or full on-site review of programs conducted by your company. Confirm compliance with FSMA Produce Safety rule, as well as industry best practices, potentially to include review of growers’ records. Sampling and testing of product on a defined schedule will generally need to be conducted as well.


    LOWER RISK:

    Tree crops or other items grown off the ground, and items with no history of past recalls.  Other factors to consider: local or domestically grown items, or crops over which the processor has direct oversight (vertically integrated companies) may have lower risk.

    Examples: Dried fruit or other items with minimal past food safety issues, some tree nuts, items that are always heat treated or processed in some way prior to consumption. In some cases, these items may qualify for an exemption from FSMA (see below).

    Potential Controls: Grower completes a questionnaire or your employee works with them to complete one; review of the grower’s food safety plan; short on-site visit to review practices / observe.

    Exempt: There are a few exemptions built into the FSMA Produce Safety rule. For these items, an exemption may be taken per the regulation, or they can be treated as low risk as outlined above.  These include:
    1. Produce on the “rarely consumed raw” list
    2. Produce on individual consumption or on-farm consumption (not for sale)
    3. Produce the receives a commercial processing step which would significantly reduce pathogens

    Examples: Tomatoes for paste or canning, peaches or olives for canning, California-grown almonds treated per the marketing order, wine grapes used for wine (not eaten).

    Potential Controls: Documentation to demonstrate qualification for exemption.  This implicitly requires that the processing step be validated as a “kill step”, it can’t just be assumed that it is effective.

    FDA’s Focus Areas for Risk Management in Produce

    There are a few specific focus areas built into the rule, where the FDA and industry working groups have identified potential risks related to agricultural products. These are the focus areas of the Produce Safety rule that can be reviewed with growers you purchase from:

    1. Personnel training and qualification: This section is mainly focused on personal hygiene, harvesting activities, handling product, and relevant employee training.
    2. Agricultural water quality: The most controversial section, this one is still under review by FDA for discussion with the industry as they consider potential changes. Requires growers to establish and maintain a “microbial water quality profile”, utilizing specific test methods for generic E. coli.  Compliance dates for these requirements are delayed for a few more years.
    3. Soil amendments: Focuses mainly on soil amendments of animal origin, and controlling associated risks. This control can be achieved through treatment of those amendments, or timing of application of raw amendments well in advance of harvest.  No soil amendments should ever come into contact with the harvestable portion of the crop.
    4. Domesticated and wild animals: Requires monitoring for animal activity which may put product at risk, and taking appropriate actions if observed.
    5. Growing, harvesting, packing and holding activities: Focused on how activities are carried out related to product risk, such as handling practices.
    6. Equipment, tools, buildings, and sanitation for processing operations: Design and maintenance of equipment, tools and facilities; cleaning and sanitation; pest control; etc.

    Low-Cost Training Available

    If you are responsible for purchasing raw agricultural commodities, or handle the “grower relations” function, consider attending the official one-day produce safety course and become familiar with the requirements of the rule. After attending the course you’ll receive an official certificate from AFDO.  Safe Food Alliance currently offers this course in various locations at low cost this spring.

  • CAWG Applauds Federal Funding for Smoke Exposure Research

    SACRAMENTO, June 4, 2019 – The House Appropriations Committee on June 4 approved a bill that includes $1.5 million in research funding to address issues related to smoke exposed wine grapes. The committeeapproved the fiscal year 2020 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and RelatedAgencies bill on a 29 to 21 vote.

    “We appreciate the committee’s decision to fund smoke exposure research and I want to commend, inparticular, the leadership of California Reps. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) to obtain these funds,” said California Association of Wine grape Growers (CAWG) President John Aguirre.

    CAWG and other industry organizations from California, Oregon and Washington originally requested $5 millionfor smoke exposure research. These groups will continue to push for the full $5 million as the U.S. Senate workson its bill to fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies.

    Additional information:

    House Appropriations Committee approves funding bill (June 4)
    https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-approves-fiscal-year-2020-agriculture-rural-development

    House Appropriations Committee releases funding bill (May 22)
    https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committee-releases-fiscal-year-2020-agriculture-rural-development

    Media contacts:
    ·John Aguirre, (916) 379-8995, john@cawg.org
    ·Meredith Ritchie, (916) 984-4473, meredith@cawg.org

     

  • California Crop Weather (Week Ending: June 2, 2019)

    Weather

     Temperature highs ranged from the mid 50s to mid 80s in the mountains, low 60s to mid 90s along the coast, high 60s to high 90s in the valley, and low 70s to low 100s in the desert.  Temperature lows ranged from the low 30s to high 40s in the mountains, low 40s to low 60s in the desert, high 30s to mid 50s along the coast, and mid 40s to high 50s in the valley.

     Field Crops

     In the Sacramento Valley, winter wheat progressed well and rice continued to be planted. Corn and safflower continued to progress well in Kings. Cutting of alfalfa continued. In Tulare, Corn and cotton continued to progress well. Wheat, alfalfa, and oats continued to be harvested. Silage crops were being cut.

     Fruit Crops

     Pomegranates started to bloom. Stone fruit thinning was ongoing as late season immature fruit developed. Early varieties of apricot, peach, and nectarine were harvested. Though intermittent rain hampered harvest, cherry harvest continued at an accelerated rate with the forecast of more rain. Nutrient sprays and pesticides, herbicides and fungicides were applied to orchards and vineyards. Mechanical vineyard maintenance continued. Shoot thinning and positioning were also underway in grape vineyards. Late Navel orange quality declined and harvest was wrapping up for the season. Star Ruby grapefruit were harvested. Seedless tangerines remained netted for the bloom. Valencia orange and lemon harvesting continued. Citrus groves were thinned, topped and skirted. Olive bloom was progressing well. Some olive trees were pruned.

     Nut Crops

     Almonds were sizing well. Walnut and pistachio bloom continued. Young nut orchard floors were mowed and irrigations systems repaired.

     Vegetable Crops

     In the Sacramento Valley, tomatoes for processing continued to be planted and asparagus harvest concluded. Blackeye peas were planted in Kings County. In Tulare County, zucchini continued to be harvested. Broccoli, asparagus, and carrot harvest concluded in Fresno County. In San Mateo County, artichokes and peas were harvested.

     Livestock

     Foothill rangeland and non-irrigated pasture remained in good condition. Late season precipitation benefitted grass and forb growth. Sheep grazed in fallow fields.  Some bees were moved out of state, while others were moved to kiwi vineyards and melon fields for pollination.
  • CAWG Statement on Passing of $19.1 Billion Disaster Assistance Bill by House of Representatives

    SACRAMENTO, June 4, 2019 – California Association of Wine grape Growers (CAWG) President John Aguirre has issued the following statement:

    “In November 2018, in the wake of wildfires that devastated a number of California communities and prevented many growers from selling their 2018 wine grape crop, the California Association of Wine grape Growers (CAWG) and other California grower organizations asked Congress to assist in the recovery of adversely affected wine grape growers.

    “The House of Representatives on June 3 passed a disaster assistance bill that offers up to $19.1 billion to aid the recovery of communities, businesses and farmers across the country affected by hurricanes, flooding and wildfires. The bill, passed on a bipartisan 354 to 58 vote, includes $3.005 billion to fund payments for growers affected by a variety of natural disasters that occurred last year and more recently in 2019.

    CAWG-statement

    “With the bill’s passage and the expected signature of the president, California growers who experienced wildfire-related losses in 2018, including losses related to smoke exposure, will be able to apply for assistance payments from the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program (WHIP), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency.

    “CAWG commends those members of the California congressional delegation who voted for the disaster assistance bill, particularly Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who worked hard to ensure WHIP would be available to assist California growers affected by smoke exposure-related losses.

    “CAWG also wishes to recognize and thank the following organizations that signed onto letters to Congress last November seeking assistance for growers affected by wildfires: Lake County Farm Bureau, Lake County Winegrape Commission, Mendocino County Farm Bureau and Mendocino Winegrowers, Inc.”

    Additional information:

    Press release from House Appropriations Committee (June 4)

    https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-passes-191-billion-bicameral-bipartisan-disaster-relief-package

    Summary of bill

    https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Emergency%20Supplemental%20Summary.pdf

    Media contacts:

    • John Aguirre, (916) 379-8995, john@cawg.org
    • Meredith Ritchie, (916) 984-4473, meredith@cawg.org
  • Writing Corrective Actions for Your Food Safety Audit

    You have just been audited, by a customer or by a third-party, and are now facing a Corrective Action Request (CAR). What is a Corrective Action Request? What do you do? Your first instinct should be to ask why.

    Why?

    Exactly!

    When you understand what caused the problems, you can create long-term solutions to prevent them from happening again or negatively impacting other processes. Why—again—is this important? The bottom line is that every business is run on revenue, margins and overall profitability. Top management meetings are inundated by numbers. Certainly, your work is important on many levels, but underlying every other aspect of your work is your responsibility to help improve food safety and quality. A simple mistake means time and money is spent to rework or destroy product. CAPA (Corrective action and Preventive Actions) derived from 5 Whys or fishbone are tools that can be used to address a systemic issue, control processes, and ultimately help prevent a costly food safety or quality incident.

    So, what should you do after you clearly defined why this corrective action was issued?

    Investigate

    Find out what caused the problem. Not just what happened, but what started the problem. In order to find the right solution, you must first identify the root cause of the issue.

    The 5 Whys Method

    The 5 Whys, a root cause analysis method, is just one tool that can be used to better understand the root cause of a problem. In this method, you ask “why” as many times as you can until the root cause is determined—not necessarily just five times.

    The Fishbone Method

    Another simple root cause analysis tool is called the Fishbone (Ishikawa) Diagram. In this methodology, factors are broken into categories. This is also known as the 6M: Manpower, Method, Machine, Materials, Measurements, and Mother Nature.  These are commonly-used categories for manufacturing environments, and each likely cause is assigned to the appropriate category.

    Manpower

    To determine the root cause, start an investigation that includes the people involved in the process. Interview them, discuss the process together, and let them help you understand what may have led to the issue in the first place. It’s critical that the focus be on gaps in processes and systems, rather than individuals, as a problem is seldom isolated to an individual. Focusing on the individual also puts them on the defensive. If the lines of communication are not as open as we would like them to be, the employees are less likely to discuss what they need or why they do the things that they do for a procedure.

    Method

    Next look at the standard operating procedure and verify that what you say is indeed what you do. Variation, inconsistency or discrepancy in systems and practices play a very important role in the outcome of the process, as do the practices of employees who are directly involved in executing the technical aspects of the job. Resources are important to consider as well; if your team members are not provided with what’s needed to do their job properly, they will find ways to improvise.

    The company values set by the leaders of the organization in terms of food safety and quality can also greatly influence the decision-making process of your team. We must ask our team to answer this: Is it more important to make product on time, which may need to be re-worked; or is it more important to make good product the first time around? To be fair this is a challenging question to grapple with. There are often internal pressures, such as the production department’s demand to meet the daily quota in accordance with the shipping schedule. These pressures can result in higher prices if output is given higher priority than food safety and quality. It won’t matter that you were able to meet your production schedule, if the product does not meet defined food safety and quality specifications, and ultimately customer expectations.

    Machine, Materials, Measurements, and Mother Nature

    The rest of the categories laid out in the fishbone format relate to issues other than personnel activities such as equipment, materials, product specifications, and the environment. Even the different seasons and changes in weather can play a role in how agricultural raw materials may impact process. The equipment used to measure product specifications can prove to be out of calibration and incorrect readings at times. That’s why it’s so important to calibrate at least annually by a third party and verify measuring devices daily or at frequencies deemed appropriate for product specifications. A lot of these things can go back to policies laid out in the prerequisite programs set in place by the facility.  The development of PRPs (prerequisite programs) and effective execution of those program can a play a pivotal role.

    The items noted above are just a few examples of what to look for when conducting your own investigation for determining root cause and developing corrective actions to prevent it from reoccurring.

    After Root Cause – Fixing the Problem

    Once a root cause is identified, make sure you find a solution that thoroughly addresses the issue. If you don’t, it is very possible the problem will happen again. CAPA investigators frequently identify non-conformity as a root cause, thus leading to develop an ineffective solution.

    Example

    Let’s say that there’s a specific area of the facility where you frequently find trash on the floor. The non-conformity is that the trash on the floor may pose a risk for pest harborage and provide unhygienic conditions for the facility that can lead to product cross contamination. If the ‘fix’ that the company applied was to train people to pick up the trash and dispose of it in a different location, and this non-conformity still continues to occur, then the solution did not permanently address the problem. It may have been just a correction.

    The corrective action in this simple scenario may be to place an appropriate trash receptacle in this location or in the close proximity, assign responsible personnel as when to remove the trash and verify during the pre-op and throughout the day. It is important to know the difference between a correction and a corrective action, that way your CAPA responses will be more likely to be effective, and less likely to reoccur.

    Final Thoughts

    In developing CAPAs, there are two important things to document:

    1. Provide a summary of the root cause of the problem. The summary must identify the main cause(s) of the problem and should also lead to corrective actions which will prevent the problem from happening again.
    2. Provide evidence of the solution. Justify that the solution works by documenting pictures, revised documents or records, training records, etc.  It is not only important to find the cause of the issue but to also prove that your team efficiently implemented a solution to prevent the non-conformance from recurring.

    If you would like more information about how to correctly write corrective actions, contact Sam Greenlee, Safe Food Certifications, LLC (samg@safefoodcertifications.com; Tel: 916-246-2806).

  • Listeria spp. vs. Listeria Monocytogenes

    When submitting a sample for testing which option should you choose: Listeria spp. Or Listeria monocytogenes?

    That is a good question. One is very broad (Listeria spp.) and will give you a lot of information about the bacteria in the genera and the other is specific (L. monocytogenes) one species in the genera. Think about the tests like this: one is fruit and the other is a granny smith apple.

    Most would choose the more specific granny smith or Listeria monocytogenes. But what doesthat mean for your operations? Let me explain.

    Listeria monocytogenes is the most common foodborne pathogen of Listeria. The pathogen is very specific and the leading cause for major Listeria recalls. If you obtain a negative result for L. monocytogenes, you do not have contamination with the specific species that causes illness.

    If you choose to test for Listeria spp. the lab is going to test for every species of Listeria, pathogenic or non-pathogenic. If you obtain a positive result for Listeria spp. it means you have contamination but it may or may not be the pathogenic species. This is a good way tomeasure sanitation processes.

    Listeria Explained

    Today there are 20 identified species of Listeria. The pathogen received its name from British surgeon Joseph Lister in 1940 but wasn’t first recorded as disease causing until 1924 with the death of a young rabbit. Listeria is found living ubiquitously in soil which often leads to fruit and vegetable contamination.

    L. monocytogenes is contracted by eating food contaminated with the bacteria. This specific pathogen is also very hardy and can grow in a wide range of environments; temperatures from 39°F (4°C) (the temperature of your refrigerator) to 98.6°F (37°C) (your bodies internal temperature), wet damp areas such as drains, and has varying incubation periods of three to 70 days.

    Listeria statistically is one of the most fatal bacteria, with death rates near 25%, this in comparison to Salmonella which has mortality rates of less than 1%. In the US it is estimated 1,600 people are infected each year.

    Deaths Map

     

    www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cantaloupes-jensen-farms/index.html

     

    Listeria in the News

    Packaged Salads 2016: 19 people infected in 9 states leading to 1 death.

    Packaged Salads Graph

     

    www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/bagged-salads-01-16/epi.html.

     

     

    Cantaloupes 2011: 147 people infected in 28 states leading to 33 deaths.

     

    Avocados 2019: Possible contamination leading to a voluntary recall of avocados in 6 states after environmental samples taken at the packing facility were positive.

     

    Testing Methods (PCR vs VIDAS vs Petrifilm)

    When testing, it is always important to determine which testing method will work best for your operation. The test methods have differing advantages and disadvantages.

    Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR):

    This method is a molecule technique where the DNA is extracted from the bacteria. Copies of the bacterial DNA are made exponentially (see figure below). These copies are labeled with a dye or isotope and are detected in a themocycler by a laser. As time passes the number of copies increases and the DNA is detected or not detected giving the final results.

    PCR Amplification

     

     

    http://www.gmotesting.com/Testing-Options/Genetic-analysis

     

    • Advantages: Time, this method is very fast, with an average turn-around time of 24 to 48 hours. This method is also very specific. The DNA is a molecule “fingerprint” which is specific to the Listeria spp.

     

    • Disadvantages: This method is currently used to detect all Listeria spp. It will not distinguish between pathogenic and nonpathogenic strains.

    VIDAS

    https://www.biomerieux-usa.com/vet-vidas

     

    VIDAS:

    This method uses the proteins on the outside of the bacteria for detection. The detection

    method that is specific for L. monocytogenes is completed by detecting a virulence antigen

    specific to the pathogenic strain.

     

    • Advantages: Time, this method is rapid, with an average turn-around time of 24 to 48

    hours. It can be utilized to distinguish L. monocytogenes verses Listeria spp.

     

    • Disadvantages:While effective, this method may require an additional 24 hours when

    compared to the other methods.

     

    The VIDAS method at Safe Food Alliance

    We currently use LPT VIDAS, which is a 24 to 26 hours analysis with a similar turn around time (TAT) as the PCR method. The method currently being used is approved by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC), and has been peer reviewed, validated and verified under our ISO scope for various commodities. Safe Food Alliance is currently working to complete validation of the LMX VIDAS method which has a shorter 24-hour turn around time.

    Petrifilm:

    Petrifilms are used to grow the colonies of Listeria spp.

     

    • Advantages: Similar to conventional microbiology in that you are able to detect the Listeria spp by actually growing it. It will give you confidence that the pathogen you are looking for is living or dead. Results are fast and usually will be quantifiable (results are given in colony forming units (cfu)/g. This is a major difference compared to methods such as PCR and VIDAS which will only give you a qualitative, positive/negative result.)

     

    • Disadvantages: This method is currently used to detect all Listeria spp. it will not distinguish between pathogenic and nonpathogenic strains. It is a quantitative method compared to the more qualitative methods of PCR and VIDAS.

    Enviornmental Listeria

     Benesh, Deann L, et al. “3M™ Petrifilm™ Environmental Listeria

    Plate.” Journal of AOAC International, vol. 96, no. 2, 2013, pp. 225–228.,

    doi:10.5740/jaoacint.govval02.

     

    Choosing the Method That Works for You

    All in all, the testing you require may vary based on your facility, and your overall goal of the testing. If you want to make sure you have proper sanitation processes in order, selecting the Listeria spp testing might be the best option for your business. If you are more worried about a possible recall, think you might have contamination issues with Listeria monocytogenes or even to ensure your sanitation practices are adequate, selecting for L. mono testing would be your best option.

    The various methods for detections are constantly changing and evolving to make the process easier, more accurate, and quicker. As we move further into the age of genetics, PCR or whole genome sequencing will play a very vital role in detection of microorganisms. Genome sequencing will allow for traceability, helping with recalls and pinpointing the epidemiological impact of a specific illness causing bacteria. The cost of the technology is going down as more and more models are becoming available making it easier for all labs to utilize these tools.

    An Article By: Joseph Nicholl (Safe Food Alliance) 

  • Managing Weeds is Key to Improving Yields & Orchard Health

    Almond Board of California — Weeds are a seemingly constant issue in the orchard. If not managed properly, they can create competition among young trees, clog micro-irrigation systems, use and generate uneven irrigation and contribute to a messy orchard floor during harvest. Good weed management, then, starts with identifying the weeds in your orchard, which requires constant, attentive monitoring.

    The University of California’s (UC) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) guidelines recommend the following actions for monitoring weeds:

    • Survey your orchard for weeds in late fall and again in late spring.
    • Monitor the orchard in a thorough fashion. Include the entire orchard as well as field margins, ditch banks and irrigation canals in your survey.
    • Examine all areas that are susceptible to weed infestation, like areas of high moisture. Collect important information such as weed species, location in the field, degree of control achieved with current program, and herbicides applied.
    • Record observations on a survey form that includes a map so the infested sites can be revisited for weed control. Pay particular attention to perennial weeds and other problem weeds and note their location on the map.
    • Record weeds found in rows and middles separately. Weeds in tree rows must be managed, but annual weeds in row middles — i.e. cover crops — may have some benefit as an orchard floor cover.

    Once you know what you’re dealing with, look to select herbicides or other control techniques based on what kinds of weeds are actually present in the orchard. The UC IPM website provides a comprehensive list of common and scientific names of weeds, along with photos and descriptions of each. You can find that list here.

    In the late spring, the most important invasive weeds to look out for are perennial weeds. These weeds can be a pervasive problem for almond growers, so weed management practices should be geared toward preventing their growth in the rows or row middles of the orchard. Common perennial weeds you’ll see are Bermudagrass, Johnsongrass, Dallisgrass, Nutsedges and White Clovers. Also, tufted perennial grasses such as threespike goosegrass are especially problematic during the beginning years of tree nut establishment due to their ability to reduce three growth by competing for water, nutrients and sunlight. Once the almond trees reach their fourth leaf, established plants can reduce harvest efficiency by making it more difficult to recover nuts from the orchard floor at harvest. The UC IPM website provides a late-spring weed survey form to help you identify these pests as June approaches.

    Once weeds are properly identified and the correct herbicides are applied, it’s vital to control herbicide resistance by using a variety of weed-control strategies. Failure to do so can result in the rapid loss of an herbicide’s effectiveness — and there are very few new herbicide technologies in the pipeline.

    Detecting resistance is the second step in preventing resistance. Patterns of herbicide resistance include patches of dense weeds with less dense populations radiating out from the central patch and weeds that have escaped control, scattered throughout the field.

    To combat resistance and reduce weed seed spreading, the UC IPM recommends the follow steps:

    • Rotate herbicides that have different modes of action and Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) group numbers.
      • Drew Wolter, UCCE Junior Specialist Horticulture Intern under Brad Hanson recently published an article on herbicide performance that helps demonstrate the importance of rotating applications.
    • Monitor for weed survival after an herbicide application.
    • Include non-chemical weed control methods such as cultivation or hand weeding.
    • Clean equipment after working in weed-contaminated orchards to prevent the spread of weed seeds.
    • Control weeds suspected of herbicide resistance before they can produce seed.
    • If weeds escape treatment, use shovels, hoes, and other hand tools to cut the plants below the soil surface to prevent flowering.
    • Use a pre-emergent herbicide before weeds appear. When the weeds emerge in fall and spring, consider splitting applications to meet the multiple emergence windows.

    Weed management is vital to a successful growing season and — with the right steps — can improve the yield and growth of established trees.

    For more resources regarding weed management, please visit the follow links on the UC IPM website:

  • Organic Trade Association holds Bold Ideas & Critical Conversations Conference

    The Organic Trade Association promised to look at the world of organic a little differently at its 2019 policy conference, and it kept its word.

    Bold ideas and Critical Conversation

    The association invited other organizations that are working to advance food and farming priorities to share their bold ideas with the organic community. It hosted social influencers from around the country to educate them on the association’s work and the advocacy of its members. And it featured in-depth, no-holds-barred conversations on everything from how to make organic affordable for consumers and still profitable for farmers to the emerging hemp market and the opportunities it offers for organic.

    The 250-plus attendees at the Organic Trade Association’s Bold Ideas + Critical Conversations conference on May 23 represented the diversity of today’s organic sector: organic grain and livestock farmers from Montana, organic fruit and vegetable growers from California and organic dairy producers from the Midwest, national organic brands and small organic businesses, organic certifiers and organic distributors, organic importers and organic exporters, and organic policymakers and organic trendsetters.

     

    “This year’s conference was about new ideas and innovative thinking. Organic has come a long way, but we are dealing with some big challenges, and we are pleased that our conference enabled a frank discussion – and also some brainstorming – on how to keep organic advancing,” said Laura Batcha, CEO and Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association. “Now we need to make sure that this constructive conversation and positive action continue.”

     

    Even the venue of the conference – Washington’s historic Union Market — represented organic’s embrace of the future and its respect for the past. Originating as Centre Market over 200 years ago, what is now today’s Union Market was at one time the city’s largest farmers’ market, with hundreds of vendors of produce, meat, eggs and everything in between. After surviving some turbulent times, it is now back on strong footing as a thriving revitalized economic growth center for the community that honors its culinary beginnings and also fosters a diverse culture of sights and sounds.

     

    Collaboration and transparencyCritical Conversations Conference

     

    Making its debut at the conference was Coalition Alley. The Organic Trade Association assembled a broad coalition of partners to connect with the conference attendees about their diverse priorities. What did they have in common? All of the passionate advocates are doing important work to promote the best practices in farming, to educate the public about healthy food and lifestyle choices, and to create sound policy changes to advance agriculture.

     

    Participants in Coalition Alley were American Farmland Trust, Organic Farming Research Foundation, National Farmers Union, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, Partnership for a Healthier America, ShiftCon, USDA’s National Organic Program and The Organic Center.

     

    Also marking a first at the annual conference was the Organic Trade Association’s first-ever Influencer Program. Seven widely followed social media influencers were chosen to cover the conference and other activities during Organic Week to get a behind-the-scenes look at organic advocacy in action.

     

    The following of these enthusiastic and committed organic activists on Instagram alone totals some 263,000, but their reach and influence go far beyond that. Being able to experience directly the organic advocacy process in the nation’s capital, and to chronicle that experience to their hundreds of thousands of followers, was an invaluable learning lesson for all involved.

     

    “Organic has nothing to hide,” said Batcha in kicking off the conference. “Organic is fighting for good, we wear the white hats, and we’ve turned back the curtain for the media on our lobbying efforts.”

     

    “We all need to commit to dig in and improve the way the public/private partnership between the government and the organic sector works,” Batcha told attendees. “We need to keep organic advancing … All of agriculture can learn from organic, and everyone could benefit from organic moving forward.”

     

    The impressive list of speakers and leaders at the conference included former Chief Agricultrual Trade Negotiator at the Office of U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Darci Vetter; Rudy Arredondo, President and CEO of the National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association; Alice Rolls, President and CEO of Georgia Organics; Jeff Huckaby, President and CEO of Cal-Organic/Grimmway Farms; Gary Hirshberg, Co-founder of Stonyfield Farm; Carla Vernon, President of the Natural & Organic Operating Unit, General Mills; David Wasserman, U.S. House Editor and Senior Election Analayst, The Cook Political Report; Naomi Starkman, Founder and Editor-in-chief of Civil Eats, and many more.

     

  • Under Secretary McKinney to Lead U.S. Exporters on Trade Mission to Colombia

    Colombia and Panama are among the fastest-growing markets in the Western Hemisphere for U.S. farm and food products. American exporters seeking to tap that potential will join Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Ted McKinney in Bogotá for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s largest-ever international trade mission June 4-7.

    “The record size of this trade mission delegation demonstrates the degree of U.S. exporter interest in these markets,” McKinney said. “I’m thrilled that representatives from 54 agribusiness and associations and six state departments of agriculture are on board and ready to connect with potential customers from both Colombia and Panama.”

    The United States entered into free trade agreements with both countries in 2012 and, since then, agricultural export growth has been robust.

    “Our food and farm exports to Colombia have nearly tripled, from $1.1 billion in 2012 to a record $2.9 billion in 2018. And while Panama’s a much smaller market, we’ve also seen our exports grow significantly, from $490 million in 2012 to $683 million last year,” McKinney said.

    In addition to representatives from the following companies and organizations, McKinney will be joined by Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture Thom Petersen, Virginia Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry Bettina Ring, and officials from the Georgia, Idaho, Missouri and Montana departments of agriculture.

    1. Agropur US, Appleton, Wis.
    2. Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Juneau, Alaska
    3. Alltech, Nicholasville, Ky.
    4. American Paint Horse Association, Fort Worth, Texas
    5. American Peanut Council, Alexandria, Va.
    6. Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, Calif.
    7. Bridgepathway LLC, Jericho, N.Y.
    8. Clarkson Grain Company, Inc., Cerro Gordo, Ill.
    9. Columbus Vegetable Oils, Des Plaines, Ill.
    10. Cornerstone Chaldees LLC, Marion, Ky.
    11. Crider Foods, Stillmore, Ga.
    12. Crown Products, Inc. Metairie, La.
    13. Eastern Quality Foods, Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla.
    14. F3 Vineyards Inc., Las Vegas, Nev.
    15. Federated Group, Arlington Heights, Ill.
    16. Fieldstone Meats of Alabama, Inc., Oneonta, Ala.
    17. Food Export Association of the Midwest USA, Chicago, Ill.
    18. Global Export Marketing Co. Ltd., New York, N.Y.
    19. JJ Martin Group LLC, Newark, N.J.
    20. JM Grain, Garrison, N.D.
    21. K&N’s Foods USA LLC, Fulton, N.Y.
    22. Leprino Foods, Denver, Colo.
    23. Metafoods, LLC, Atlanta, Ga.
    24. Mid Valley Nut Company, Hughson, Calif.
    25. Minnesota Beef Council, Maple Plain, Minn.
    26. Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Shakopee, Minn.
    27. Minnesota Farm Bureau, Eagan, Minn.
    28. Minnesota Farmers Union, St. Paul, Minn.
    29. Minnesota Pork Producers Association, Mankato, Minn.
    30. Minnesota Pork Board, Mankato, Minn.
    31. Minnesota Soybean Research and Promotion Council, Mankato, Minn.
    32. Minnesota Soybean Growers Association, Mankato, Minn.
    33. Minnesota Turkey Research and Promotion Council, Buffalo, Minn.
    34. Mountain States Oilseeds LLC, American Falls, Idaho
    35. National Cotton Council of America, Cordova, Tenn.
    36. Riviana Foods Inc., Houston, Texas
    37. Rosina Food Products, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y.
    38. Sagamore Spirit, Baltimore, Md.
    39. Salsa God, LLC, New York, N.Y.
    40. Select Foods, Delray Beach, Fla.
    41. Shining Ocean, Inc., Sumner, Wash.
    42. TAMA Corporation, Doral, Fla.
    43. Tomex Foods, Inc., Lombard, Ill.
    44. University of Minnesota Extension, St. Paul, Minn.
    45. U.S. Dairy Export Council, Arlington, Va.
    46. U.S. Grains Council, Washington, D.C.
    47. U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc., Mount Horeb, Wis.
    48. U.S. Soybean Export Council, Chesterfield, Mo.
    49. U.S. Wheat Associates, Arlington, Va.
    50. USA Rice Federation, Arlington, Va.
    51. Virginia Natural Beef Inc., Lexington, Va.
    52. Whistling Andy Distilling, Bigfork, Mont.
    53. Western United States Agricultural Trade Association, Vancouver, Wash.
    54. Zafi Beverages & Technologies, Bensenville, Ill.

    Learn more about this and other USDA trade missions by visiting https://www.fas.usda.gov/topics/trade-missions and following FAS on Twitter at @USDAForeignAg.

  • CA Prunes Introduces New Brand to Inspire all to Choose CA for Prunes

    The finest prunes on Earth have a new brand with a familiar name: California Prunes – representing all that makes California Prunes premium: world-famous growing conditions, generations of expertise among our growers and handlers, a perfected drying system, and the highest quality agricultural standards of any other nation.

    “The world comes to California for prunes, and we take that seriously,” said Donn Zea, Executive Director, California Prune Board. “California is the most reliable and consistent source in the industry for quality, size, and taste.”

    CA Prunes Introduces New BrandThe new brand is a positive embrace of California Prunes for their premium nature and an expansive view of all their benefits. The new logo design transforms a statement of origin into a reflection of market leadership and a dual message emerges through the tagline: Prunes. For life. signifying that California Prunes are good for your life, at every stage of your life.

    “It moves prunes away from an occasional food choice to a daily pleasure. This is ideal since California Prunes are good for your gut, heart and bones,” said Zea.

    He explains that consumers care more than ever about their food and the time is right to promote California Prunes in a fresh way.

    “Gut health has gained more interest and relevance, and clinical trials suggest that eating five or six prunes a day may support healthy bones,” said Zea. “In addition to the nutritional benefits, market research has shown that the only thing holding people back from eating more prunes isn’t negative perceptions, but rather the simple need for more top-of-mind awareness.”

    CALIFORNIA PRUNES DRIVE GROWTH WORLDWIDE
    “For more than three decades, we have opened markets globally for California Prunes, and we continue to do so today,” said Zea. “California has invested in premium growing processes and quality control along with nutrition and crop research, all while being committed to sustainable agriculture and ethical labor practices.”

    “When it comes to prunes, California delivers. California Prunes have earned a premium reputation in global markets,” said Zea. “The message of our new brand is clear: Choose California for prunes.”

    Joe Turkovich, Chairman of the California Prune Board and California Prune grower from Winters, Calif., said the new brand represents the premium qualities of California Prunes.

    “California’s lush valleys, ancient soils, and endless sun are ideal for growing a delectable-tasting fruit that is like none other,” said Turkovich. “California Prunes are handcrafted with care to ensure each piece of fruit is harvested at its peak for optimal size, exceptional texture, and a signature sweetness.”


    Turkovich explains that California Prunes taste – and pair – like no other prunes in the world.

    “They are fresh and sweet with a rich, smooth mouthfeel that is reliably consistent,” said Turkovich. “We are eager to encourage everyone to enjoy California Prunes today and every day.”
    CA Prunes Introduces New Brand

    GROWN IN CALIFORNIA, SAVORED AROUND THE WORLD

     California Prunes are delivered into more than 60 countries around the world. The new brand will be integrated extensively into markets including the United States, Canada, the European Union, Japan, China, and South Korea.

    To access the new California Prunes logo, photos, and recipes, visit the newly re-designed California Prunes website at www.CaliforniaPrunes.org. For additional information, visit the California Prunes’ FacebookTwitter and Instagram social media channels at @CAforPrunes.

    ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA PRUNE BOARD 
    Created in 1952, The California Prune Board aims to amplify the premium positioning and top-of-mind awareness of California Prunes through advertising, public relations, promotion, nutrition research, crop management and sustainability research, and issues management. The California Prune Board represents approximately 800 prune growers and 28 prune, juice, and ingredient handlers under the authority of the California Secretary of Food and Agriculture.